Protestants: When did the Church depart from Truth into Error?

[Mannyfit75]

She the Holy Mother Church has not err. You and other Protestants may make the claim, but we Catholics here have refute it because most of the claim are taken out of context.

 

[rr1213]

My goal here is not to prove that the Catholic Church was right all along, even though I believe that. It could very well be that the “Fundamentalists” are right, although I highly doubt it. My observation is to point out that if you accept the Church went astray, it’s only reasonable to conclude it happened very rapidly, perhaps within the first century.

Many who consider themselves “Fundamentalists” and other “Protestant” groups can accept this as a possibility. However, I cannot. This is not based on intellectual or historical truths as strong as I believe they are. This is a faith issue.

For a person to say that the Church went astray within the first century does not reflect well on God, in my view. That would be like saying God was disinterested in guiding and walking with His people. What kind of God will allow His people to fall into serious theological darkness for 1500 years? It’s possible, but I cannot accept it. If the Reformation happened in the 4th or 5th century (right after the council of Nicea), I would be more inclined to buy into this perspective.

If God was capable of ensuring His Church would stay on the right track, wouldn’t He? I believe He did, and He didn’t wait 1500 years either.

Interesting, but why would it be any more reasonable to assume that error, if it did happen, could not have happened early? I don’t follow your logic there.
Also, hypothetically, could God have allowed error to be in the Church for 1500 years? Why not? God’s sense of time is different than ours. His people were slaves in Egypt for many years, Abraham was promised a son for many years before he saw that promise fulfilled, the Jews waited for a Messiah for ages (and most are still, alas, waiting …unwilling to see Jesus), most of the disciples at the time of Christ believed (with some reason if you look at some of the scriptural references) that Jesus’ second coming would be within their lifetime…all I am trying to say is that our human understanding about time–and about when something should happen–often does not match God’s will.

 

[rr1213]

Ani Ibi,

P.S.: I suppose my response above sounds snotty and, if so, I apologize but I do want to hear if there are any valid, rational explanations as to how and when the Catholic Church began to err. As Protestants, believe that to be true, yet what is it saying about us if we cannot explain what happened? If there are no good explanations, then the absence of an explanation has persuasive value for the Catholic position.

 

[Techno2000]

Ani Ibi,

P.S.: I suppose my response above sounds snotty and, if so, I apologize but I do want to hear if there are any valid, rational explanations as to how and when the Catholic Church began to err. As Protestants, believe that to be true, yet what is it saying about us if we cannot explain what happened? If there are no good explanations, then the absence of an explanation has persuasive value for the Catholic position.

God Bless you for being an Honest person

 

[Nancie_Lew]

Ani Ibi,

P.S.: I suppose my response above sounds snotty and, if so, I apologize but I do want to hear if there are any valid, rational explanations as to how and when the Catholic Church began to err. As Protestants, believe that to be true, yet what is it saying about us if we cannot explain what happened? If there are no good explanations, then the absence of an explanation has persuasive value for the Catholic position.

There were reformers long before Martin Luther came along. Luther was the first reformer able to succeed. All of the other reformers like Jan Hus were either put to death, imprisoned or their writings were suppressed. After the death of Jan Hus, Martin Luther found some of his writings hidden in an attic. I believe that the Holy Spirit led Luther to those writings. Those writings influenced his beliefs about faith.

If the Catholic Church is truth than why would it be afraid of anyone who challenged its doctrine? If it were truth the Reformation would not have succeeded and the Orthodox church wouldn’t have broken away.

Isn’t it ironic that the the printing press came along about the time the Reformation began giving the common people access to the Bible? What about the United States? The founding of the U.S. is a miracle in itself and it was was founded by Protestants who also provided Bibles for the rest of the world. At one time the U.S. had more missionaries in the field than all other countries in the world combined.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

Interesting, but why would it be any more reasonable to assume that error, if it did happen, could not have happened early? I don’t follow your logic there.
Also, hypothetically, could God have allowed error to be in the Church for 1500 years? Why not? God’s sense of time is different than ours. His people were slaves in Egypt for many years, Abraham was promised a son for many years before he saw that promise fulfilled, the Jews waited for a Messiah for ages (and most are still, alas, waiting …unwilling to see Jesus), most of the disciples at the time of Christ believed (with some reason if you look at some of the scriptural references) that Jesus’ second coming would be within their lifetime…all I am trying to say is that our human understanding about time–and about when something should happen–often does not match God’s will.

After two thousand years Israel is now a country again. Why two thousand years?

 

[Nancie_Lew]

Ani Ibi,

P.S.: I suppose my response above sounds snotty and, if so, I apologize but I do want to hear if there are any valid, rational explanations as to how and when the Catholic Church began to err. As Protestants, believe that to be true, yet what is it saying about us if we cannot explain what happened? If there are no good explanations, then the absence of an explanation has persuasive value for the Catholic position.

Why do you need rational explanations from Protestants? Don’t you ever pray to the Holy Spirit to ask him who is right?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

jmcrae:

Oh, I see. I thought you were trying to dissuade him from this line of questioning, or to listen only to Catholic responses to his questions.

No. I think I have made my intent clear already. I was asking for clarification. Moreover I believe that all CAF threads are (as yet) accessible by people of all faiths.

There is nothing in what I said that would lead you to claim that I am advocating listening to only Catholic responses.

But quite a bit in your own words which leads myself and others to believe that you are advocating lsitening to only Protestant responses. Here was the exchange:
Ani ibi:

Shall we turn over CAF forums for discussions exclusively among non-Catholics now?

jmcrae:

In order to show definitively that there is no valid answer from the Protestant side of the fence - that the best they can come up with is a rather vacuous “invisible church” theory - I think it is reasonable to let that happen, yes.

jmcrae:

I think the reason he is asking Protestants primarily is in order to determine whether or not there exists a Protestant answer to the question.

Yes, I already understand this and said as much. This has now become a tautology and does not respond to my question.

jmcrae:

If there is a Protestant answer to the question, then he can remain Protestant - if not, then he must become Catholic.

I already understand this. However, who is going to assess the Protestant answer? Is it not rr who will assess the Protestant answer?

So, if rr has an incomplete or erroneous understanding of why the Church believes Herself to be inerrant on doctrinal matters, then how can rr make an informed decision? Hint: he can’t.

That is why I asked my question, which remains both unaddressed and unanswered.

 

[rr1213]

Why do you need rational explanations from Protestants? Don’t you ever pray to the Holy Spirit to ask him who is right?

Of course, but God is also a God of order, not chaos, who gave us minds with which to think and reason. A rational explanation of Catholic error, if such error exists, is not too much to ask Protestants whose faith is based on a scriptual understanding that presupposes that the Catholic Church erred. I am having a struggle understanding that presupposition at this time.

Ali Ibin,
I understand the Catholic Church to hold that as the One True Church founded by Christ, as against which Scriptures state the Gates of Hell shall not prevail, and which has been promised to be lead into all truth by the Holy Spirit, cannot err regarding matters of faith and morals. This means that the Holy Spirit preserves the Church, speaking as the Church and not necessarily as individuals, from proclaiming doctrine that is incorrect. The promise does not mean that the Church will actively speak on every issue but, rather, that when it does speak authoritatively that it will speak without error. This is my understanding of the Catholic position.
RR1213

 

[Ani_Ibi]

understand the Catholic Church to hold that as the One True Church founded by Christ, as against which Scriptures state the Gates of Hell shall not prevail, and which has been promised to be lead into all truth by the Holy Spirit, cannot err regarding matters of faith and morals. This means that the Holy Spirit preserves the Church, speaking as the Church and not necessarily as individuals, from proclaiming doctrine that is incorrect. The promise does not mean that the Church will actively speak on every issue but, rather, that when it does speak authoritatively that it will speak without error. This is my understanding of the Catholic position.

Thank you.

1. Now do you, as a Protestant have a problem with any of what you have said here?
2. Do any other Protestants on this thread have a problem with any of what rr has said here?

If so, please identify the problem for us and, if we do not understand, then please be prepared to clarify so that we do understand.

Please also give reason and reference for your problems with this Church position. Maybe we can work toward some common ground from that point on?

 

[rr1213]

Thank you.

1. Now do you, as a Protestant have a problem with any of what you have said here?
2. Do any other Protestants on this thread have a problem with any of what rr has said here?

If so, please identify the problem for us and, if we do not understand, then please be prepared to clarify so that we do understand.

Please also give reason and reference for your problems with this Church position. Maybe we can work toward some common ground from that point on?

I have problems with it on a number of levels but, again, I really don’t want to get into a discussion of that in this thread because it is not what I was seeking. There are numerous threads regarding the inerrancy of the Church and the grounds for Church authority. I intended this thread to see what answers, if any, can be offered as to when and how the Church erred if, as almost all Protestants believe, it has so erred. So far, the explanations have been weak. They also have been weak, btw, over at CARM as well.

 

[BelFarfalla]

No - this is a very common misconception, and actually this misconception is the reason the Church no longer uses numbers of years to identify partial Indulgences.

The years were referring to the amount of penance that the Apostles would have assigned to someone, that the Indulgence replaces.

So, for example, 30 minutes of prayerful meditation on a passage of the Scriptures represents three years of Apostolic penance. (Fasting in sack-cloth and ashes.) This would be earthly penance, not Purgatorial penance.

Because the idea of fasting in sack-cloth and ashes for months or years on end is completely meaningless to us today (not to mention completely impractical), the Church has made the decision to no longer use any references to these penances, with regard to Indulgences.

The Church has never tried to predict how long someone might be in Purgatory. Indeed, it is a matter of theological speculation, whether it is even possible to experience the passage of time at all, in Purgatory.

Thanks this makes sense.

 

[mozart-250]

As Protestants, we believe that the Catholic Church errs in matters of doctrine and that the Reformation was a necessary correction of those errors. So, assuming that the Catholic Church erred, at what time did this begin? In other words, when was the Church essentially doing things right and when, exactly, did it subsequently depart into heresy?

I’d like to avoid the shallow and stock answers usually offered by Catholic and Protestants alike. Serious responses only please.

Somehow I question the premise here, but am having a difficult time exactly articulating how.

Maybe because as worded, it almost sounds like black/white thinking when in reality we are dealing with shades of grey.

For example I could cite the 300-400 time frame as a period when the marian dogmas began to appear in the church. For a number of well-discussed reasons, us Protestants are skeptical as to whether they are a part of the original apostolic faith.

But yet, if I’m fair, I can find a number of pet evangelical dogmas (eternal security, pre-tribulational rapture) that are equally unsupported. So if I were to engage in black/white thinking here, the only logical conclusion would be that we are all black, and that makes no sense either.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

rr1213:

Of course, but God is also a God of order, not chaos, who gave us minds with which to think and reason. A rational explanation of Catholic error, if such error exists, is not too much to ask Protestants whose faith is based on a scriptual understanding that presupposes that the Catholic Church erred. I am having a struggle understanding that presupposition at this time.

First of all that scriptural understanding is based on interpretation. That interpretation could be the interpretation of yourself as an individual, a friend of yours, your pastor, or some sort of Protestant scholar. But it is individual interpretation.

Text does not speak for itself. It must be not only be written, it must be read, and understood. Understanding is based on interpretation. Interpretation is based on our first-hand experiences.

For example, when the Europeans first came to North America, the First Nations could not see the big ships. Why? Because the First Nations had no first-hand experience of big ships. In a similar vein the Euros saw bison as deformed deer. Why? Because the Euros had no first-hand experience of bison.

There are a number of questions which arise from what I have claimed so far:

1. If personal experience and therefore personal interpretation varies so greatly among individuals, why would Jesus entrust Christian Truth to personal interpretation? More to the point, did Jesus entrust Christian Truth to personal interpretation?

Thoughts anyone?

1. If the only source for learning Christian Truth is Scripture, then

a) why do Protestants send out so many missionaries? Why for that matter even have pastors? Why talk at all? Why not instead just hand folks the Bible and never say a word?

Thoughts anyone?

1. If the only source for learning Christian Truth is Scripture, then were the illiterate, poor, non-clergy, non-leisure class not shut completely out until the invention of the Gutenburg Press and even up until the present day? Did Jesus say that the Truth was only for the rich and literate? If so, where?

Thoughts anyone?

1. Does it matter what Jesus said? Was Jesus God or just a good man? Therefore do we need to listen to Jesus in order to find Christian Truth or can we just go our own ways or the ways of whatever peer group we find ourselves in? (By the way, don’t scoff at this. I have met plenty of so-called ‘Christians’ who do not believe that Christ was resurrected from the dead.)

Thoughts anyone?

1. God did give us minds to reason. And graced us with faith. What is faith? “Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.” (He 11:1 DRC)

Science (from the Latin scientia which means knowledge) has two poles: theory and observation. Faith is theoretical knowledge. It is not magic.

So faith must be reasonable. Truth cannot contradict truth. Can a “… rational explanation of Catholic error, if such error exists…” (in your words) beg the question by resorting to some sort of faith which cannot be understood by means of reason?

Thoughts anyone?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

You say that Protestant “faith is based on a scriptural understanding that presupposes that the Catholic Church erred.”

I have already questioned the notion (above) that the scriptural understanding of the post-Gutenburg moneyed classes is adequate to understand Christian Truth.

Now let’s examine the presupposition. The word ‘presupposition’ means that we are in the realm of theory and not direct observation, although even our ability to grasp theory is based on observation (and therefore first-hand experience) at some point in our lives.

Generally when we are in the realm of theory, we are in the realm of the abstract, numbers, formal logic. But even then, some of this differs among cultures. One would think that in this all folks could find common ground. However the Piraha tribe is an exception, they have no use for numbers or abstract concepts.

So there is something therefore about the divergent first-hand experience between the Protestant realm and the Catholic realm which confounds common understanding. And this I contend is not about divergent premises, reasoning, and conclusions. It is imho far more personal than that.

First of all, please help us to understand the presupposition that the Catholic Church erred in doctrinal matters. From where does this presupposition come? Please take us through the logical steps which support this presupposition.

(I understand that this particular line of questioning is a variant of the OP and therefore directed to Protestants. But you are a Protestant and you are the one who has admitted the problem of accepting the Church’s reasons for claiming authority to teach. So I am asking you.)

From where does the presupposition that the Church erred on doctrinal matters come?

Earlier I spoke of the Piraha. In fact, I contend that the Protestant interpretation of ‘the Word’ is that it is text – specifically the one-for-one conceptual function of language: the idea that we cannot know something without having a word for it. Does the Piraha study not call that idea into question?

Thoughts anyone?

I have noticed a confusion among Protestants around the Word. In the Protestant realm it seems almost exclusively used to denote Scripture. ‘The Word’ derives from Logos. Historically, it has always been used to denote the Second Person of God – not text. Christian Truth, therefore, is not attained through Scripture. It is obtained through the Real Presence. The Real Presence is personal not textual.

Understand the Real Presence and your problem is solved. You will no longer be going your own way. (John 6:67)

 

[VociMike]

Here you go again with this, “We are right and the rest of creation is wrong” stuff again.

You mean kinda like what Christians say to the rest of creation? I’m always surprised when Christians attack the Catholic Church for holding a position regarding the truth of the faith that they, the Christians, also hold, and hold quite ferociously at that. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Truthstalker:

Yet the idea that someone can teach Catholicism to the church but be in error (my friendly neighborhood pastoral associate in charge of adult ed, for example, who refers to “Jesus events” that we have no idea of knowing about what actually happened, or his statement that “Jesus supposedly appeared to Paul”) so that the sheep are not defended against error (the priest hears this stuff but does nothing) to me is a big-time error. Catholicism is not being taught to Catholics. That is a big turn-off to me.

Hi TS. I sooooo understand what you are saying here. I can’t speak for the US. You guys have good old Patrick O’Reilly at the Cardinal Newman Society watchdogging the Catholic universities for the bishops.

But I can speak for Canada. In Ontario Catholic education is constitutionally guaranteed. Notwithstanding that fact, the forces of secular humanism – including a Catholic provincial premier – are dismantling this constitutional guarantee as I speak to you!!! Some Catholic schools are in a shambles. They have hired CINO teachers who – from what I am told – teach things contrary to the Magisterium.

(Now I know the rules say we are not to comment on parishes teaching against the M, but I am not posting about parishes – only schools and I have not named any one school specifically. Moreover, I am dealing with this directly in my archdiocese with positive suggestions not negative accusations to my Archbishop. However, if the moderator objects to my mentioning problems with the Catholic school system in Ontario, then I apologize in advance.)

All I can say, TS, is that the struggle for the hearts and minds of Catholic youth and for that matter Catholic adults is on. It is a pitted battle between the Church and the forces of secular humanism outside and inside the Church. There are whole generations of Catholics who have not been catechized.

When I assisted at the Children’s Catechism at our Cathedral, the parents would ‘wait’ in the back of the room with their unbelieving scowls engraved on their faces; yet it was obvious that they were hungry for the teaching and hung on every single word!

They would question their children afterward, wanting to know more and more. When I gave them some website addresses, their faces lit up and they walked home quickly after that, their children lagging behind yelling “Maaam! Wait up!”

When I assisted at RCIA, the catechumens dozed off at all the liberal guests which were brought in. Yet when someone who had been labelled ‘conservative’ was brought in, the catechumens sat bolt upright in their seats, eyes bright with concentration, poised to inundate the guest with questions, and then blocked the exit door until well after the session had ended.

Gotta luv em. They’re the catechumens.

As for errant folks teaching Truth: fasten your seatbelt.

I myself was brought to the Truth by a CINO family who believe hardly anything that the Church teaches, resents the Vatican and the Popes, and are in constant rebellion including the rebellion against educating themselves on what the Church actually teaches.

How can this be? Well, TS, God uses whomever is there. And with folks who are lost to the Church, sometimes the only folks who are there are other folks lost to the Church.



God has always used the lame, the stammerers, the doubters, the weak-willed, even the persecutors to transmit His Truth. (Jesus who was none of these was not an exception because Jesus was Himself God.)

It is God who speaks through these people. It is not the people themselves who speak.

A friend of mine, now a devout Catholic and faithful pro-life missionary, used to see crosses where that CINO family lived. There were no crosses there. But there was one cross that he saw that I also saw. It actually does exist in real space-time. But how could he and I have both honed in on that particular blue neon cross when so much separated us and at the time neither of us had a clue about God except that we both knew that there was a God in all things and that we wanted Him?

Truthstalker:

…these battles are long and arduous, never simple, never easy, never without cost. But a clarity comes out of them.

Nobody said it would be easy. Only possible. I never represent to prospective converts that Catholicism is an easy way out of anyone’s problems. I always ask them if they are ready to feel really small in a big Church and if they are ready for things to get tough.

Mind you, some folks still have that honeymoon period before God starts testing them, then calling them. But, I tellya TS, the looks on some of those faces in RCIA! Bliss! Pure relief! Just exactly what you would expect from anyone coming home after a long long journey into night. Beautiful. Praise God!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Also, hypothetically, could God have allowed error to be in the Church for 1500 years? Why not? God’s sense of time is different than ours.

Yes, God’s sense to time is different than ours.

But Jesus said that he will not leave us orphans. (John 14:18-21 DRC)

If God had left us for 1500 years, then all those folks who lived during that period of time would have been orphaned. God here is talking about our time, not His.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Isn’t it ironic that the the printing press came along about the time the Reformation began giving the common people access to the Bible?

Yes, tremendously ironic. Especially considering that over 90% of the Church could not read. What would they have used their Bibles for? Plant stands?

Thoughts anyone?

The insistance on using the Bible as the gate to Truth is so elitist. It is so based on a 21 Century, Western, affluent experience of life. It so excludes thoroughly the very people whom Jesus most chided us for excluding! What did he call them? “The least of Mine.”

Those very folks whom Sola Scriptura excludes are the very folks whom Jesus calls His Own.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I intended this thread to see what answers, if any, can be offered as to when and how the Church erred if, as almost all Protestants believe, it has so erred.

What is your answer as a Protestant?