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

[Rightlydivide]

There are several points to consider. First, the letter itself. Why does it even exist?

Paul mentions Clement and says he is
“my fellowlabourers”. If Paul wrote a letter to Corinth, why not his friend Clement?

After all, Rome is nowhere near Corinth. Therefore, why did the Corinthians seek out the advice of the Bishop of Rome?

The Paul and Clement connection.

1. He does not respond, “Why are you asking me? Ask your own Bishop - I have no authority over you.” (Nor does he ever say, “Pray about it for yourselves, and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. No human being has any authority over you.”)

I have never read anyone who thought Rome or anyone else had one bishop at this time and it never says that Corinth appealed to one person, Clement uses the plural “us”.

1. He does respond by telling them to obey their priests, their Bishop, and himself. Notice the hierarchy - priests are directly above them, their Bishop is directly above their priests, and he himself is directly above their Bishop.

Priests? Where did you get that? It says deacons, presbyters, and bishops(plural again). Clement does not use hiereus

1. He also makes a point of mentioning that to disobey him is the same thing as to disobey the Holy Spirit, and that if they wish to remain in peace and union with the Church, then they must obey his commands to them as found in the rest of the letter.

Not sure what translation you are using? I am also not sure why you do not use this quote instead?

47:1 Take into your hands the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul.
47:2 What did he first write unto you in the beginning of his gospel?
47:3 Of a truth, he warned you spiritually, in a letter, concerning himself, and concerning Cephas and Apollos, because even then there were factions among you;

 

[Contarini]

Possibly because a Protestant church is the sum of its membership, but the Catholic Church is the Holy Spirit acting in the world.

If Protestants thought of their churches as the action of the Holy Spirit in the world, I do not think that they would think their churches was capable of error - rather, they would say that certain people were not acting in accord with the Church, which (because it is the action of the Holy Spirit in the world) cannot err.

I hope that makes some kind of sense …

Actually it does. It still sounds like an “invisible church” theory to me. Of course Protestants have those as well, and they are disastrous.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

Actually it does. It still sounds like an “invisible church” theory to me.

Not really, since we can see and hear the members of the Magesterium, and we know when they are teaching us on the subjects of doctrine and morality.

They and their brother priests are also in persona Christi at Mass and in the Confessional.

 

[Rocky]

I am aware of the historical context, and I am not saying that this was some sort of abominable crime that discredits the Catholic Church for ever and aye. I am simply saying that it was wrong.

Edwin

Yes, it was wrong, just as it was wrong for Christians, including St. Paul, to tolerate slavery for so many thousands of years. But again, both errors were not one of doctrine— the Truth of Who Jesus is, what He did, how He did it, what He established in order to remain with us and not leave us orphans, remained unchanged.

 

[jmcrae]

Paul mentions Clement and says he is
“my fellowlabourers”. If Paul wrote a letter to Corinth, why not his friend Clement?

Paul had authority over the Corinthians because of his status as an Apostle. Clement had authority over them by being Bishop of Rome.

I have never read anyone who thought Rome or anyone else had one bishop at this time and it never says that Corinth appealed to one person, Clement uses the plural “us”.

You need to read Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, and Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma. There are also a great many others, but those two will do for starters.

Priests? Where did you get that? It says deacons, presbyters, and bishops(plural again). Clement does not use hiereus

“Presbyters” are priests.

In one part of the letter, he was making a general statement that Catholics are supposed to obey their Bishops, meaning that the Corinthians also ought to obey their Bishop. Clement obviously was not their Bishop, though, so other than the fact that he is related in some way to Paul, why should they obey him? He was also not an Apostle, either - but he was in the line of succession from Peter as Bishop of Rome - and that’s where he gets his authority from.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

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?

First of all, the Catholic church has not been around since the Apostles… It started officially in the 4th century and it started as the result of about 200 years of mistakes that the church of Rome made, along with the church in Jerusalem and other churches.

These churches grew to hundreds of thousands of members and eventually started smaller “satellite” churches which were governed by the original church. This was thier first mistake as each church is supposed to be autonomous. These, as they were called “Metropolitans” started meeting together to decide how to tell the smaller churches to believe… these meetings were called “counsels”.

The counsel of Nicea, is the counsel of 412 (I think) where the bishops of these “metropolitans” came together and developed and accepted the “Nicene Creed”.

The Nicene Creed made one very important change from the Apostles Creed. The Apostles Creed referenced a “catholic” church in a spiritual universal sense… The Nicene Creed referenced a Catholic church in a wordly institutionalized sense, and they added the word Apostolic… to mean that the catholic church is a continuation of Apostolic teaching.

Their doctrine has changed over the years… but I believe the Catholic church as an institution is easy for people to accept because It’s hard to understand a “spiritual church” from our mortal viewpoint.

gideonsword.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=88&sid=4c2d88269fe0fd0400a47688ff76ab67

 

[jmcrae]

First of all, the Catholic church has not been around since the Apostles… It started officially in the 4th century and it started as the result of about 200 years of mistakes that the church of Rome made, along with the church in Jerusalem and other churches.

Let me make sure I understand you.

Christ’s church made a whole lot of mistakes for about 200 years, died out, and was replaced by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. (300s AD) Is that what you’re saying?

What this would mean is that Christ’s Church no longer exists.

These churches grew to hundreds of thousands of members and eventually started smaller “satellite” churches which were governed by the original church. This was thier first mistake as each church is supposed to be autonomous.

Really? Then why did St. Paul feel that he had the authority to command several different “autonomous” Churches (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, etc.) instead of just letting them pray to the Holy Spirit and receive directly from Him what they were supposed to do?

Also, the events recorded in Acts 15 seem to suggest that the Apostles were in authority over all of the churches - that they didn’t have the autonomy to make their own regulations around membership.

These, as they were called “Metropolitans” started meeting together to decide how to tell the smaller churches to believe… these meetings were called “counsels”.

I think you must have meant “councils.”

The counsel of Nicea, is the counsel of 412 (I think) where the bishops of these “metropolitans” came together and developed and accepted the “Nicene Creed”.

That actually happened in 325 AD. I can’t find any record of a council occuring in 412 AD.

The Nicene Creed made one very important change from the Apostles Creed. The Apostles Creed referenced a “catholic” church in a spiritual universal sense… The Nicene Creed referenced a Catholic church in a wordly institutionalized sense, and they added the word Apostolic… to mean that the catholic church is a continuation of Apostolic teaching.

The Nicene Creed is longer and more detailed than the Apostles’ Creed, but there are no actual differences or changes in doctrine.

It’s hard to understand a “spiritual church” from our mortal viewpoint.

Several times in the New Testament, we are told that the Church wields authority over its members, to teach, to correct, and to discipline. How does a purely spiritual church exercise this authority in a consistent manner, such that every Christian congregation learns the same teachings, is corrected in the same way, and follows the same disciplines?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

rr1213:

I understand that Catholics do not believe that the Church, as opposed to individuals in the Church, can err on matters of faith and morals. I truly do understand that concept, although I don’t accept it.

Protestants, on the other hand, do believe that the Church has erred. What I am really and quite seriously interested in discussing is when and how this happened.

So let me see if I understand your “question.”

You are suggesting that, when Jesus said that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, He was really saying that the Gates of Hell will prevail against the Church at certain times during History. And that this statement of Jesus is Biblically based. (Perhaps in a book of the Bible which Catholics supressed?) And you want to know what those certain times in History are. Correct?

Bonus: I think we all want to know when those certain times in History are.

 

[Rightlydivide]

[Paul had authority over the Corinthians because of his status as an Apostle. Clement had authority over them by being Bishop of Rome.

So did all of the Apostles have authority over all churches? Did Apostles have more authority than the contradictory lists of Roman bishops? Did say, Barnabas trump Linus?

You need to read Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers

, and Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma. There are also a great many others, but those two will do for starters.
I do not read books ABOUT the early church fathers, I read THE early church fathers. I have read my entire Ante-Nicene Fathers.

“Presbyters” are priests.

No, they are not. Two seperate words in Greek and Clement uses them both. One in reference to the OT and the other in reference to the office of the early church.
[/quote]

 

[Rightlydivide]

So let me see if I understand your “question.”

You are suggesting that, when Jesus said that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, He was really saying that the Gates of Hell will prevail against the Church at certain times during History. And that this statement of Jesus is Biblically based. (Perhaps in a book of the Bible which Catholics supressed?) And you want to know what those certain times in History are. Correct?

Bonus: I think we all want to know when those certain times in History are.

So “gates of hell” means doctrinal error? What does one base that upon?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

rr1213:

I am not learning anything by having numerous well meaning (mostly) Catholics tell me the same thing over and over again. I get it. Really.

You get it. In that case, could you explain it to us please?

 

[Grateful4mercy]

Nice copy and paste job here, but at least you were honest enough to include the source forum.

First of all, the Catholic church has not been around since the Apostles… It started officially in the 4th century and it started as the result of about 200 years of mistakes that the church of Rome made, along with the church in Jerusalem and other churches.

And a ‘church’ that wasn’t started unto 12 centuries after that somehow has the actual documents to prove that claim, is that what I’m to understand?

These churches grew to hundreds of thousands of members and eventually started smaller “satellite” churches which were governed by the original church.

Doesn’t this alone disprove your first assertion? If the “satellite” churches were under the authority of the larger church, wouldn’t that be the exact model of the modern Catholic Church?

This was thier first mistake as each church is supposed to be autonomous. These, as they were called “Metropolitans” started meeting together to decide how to tell the smaller churches to believe… these meetings were called “counsels”.

Scriptural proof, please.

The counsel of Nicea, is the counsel of 412 (I think) where the bishops of these “metropolitans” came together and developed and accepted the “Nicene Creed”.

The Nicene Creed made one very important change from the Apostles Creed. The Apostles Creed referenced a “catholic” church in a spiritual universal sense… The Nicene Creed referenced a Catholic church in a wordly institutionalized sense, and they added the word Apostolic… to mean that the catholic church is a continuation of Apostolic teaching.

Falsehood. The term Catholic is used by the ECF long before the Nicene Council

Their doctrine has changed over the years… but I believe the Catholic church as an institution is easy for people to accept because It’s hard to understand a “spiritual church” from our mortal viewpoint.

gideonsword.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=88&sid=4c2d88269fe0fd0400a47688ff76ab67

Proof of doctrinal changes once again falls into the hands of the ‘Reformers’. All I can say in response to the charge is that since you deny the authority of ANY church you do not understand the meaning of the word doctrine. You seem to think it is anything anybody, anywhere says about any part of the church. If we change the brand of toilet paper in the Vatican john it does not constitute a doctrine change.

Second point. I have yet to see the word invisible or spiritual used in relation to the church anywhere in the bible. Please give references so that I may become enlightened.

[Sorry, I know I said I would just spectate, but C&P jobs from anti-catholic forums offered as* proof chap parts of me that shouldn’t get that way ]

 

[jmcrae]

So did all of the Apostles have authority over all churches? Did Apostles have more authority than the contradictory lists of Roman bishops? Did say, Barnabas trump Linus?

Linus was the successor of Peter, and head of the whole Church. Barnabas was a Bishop; not an Apostle.

I do not read books ABOUT the early church fathers, I read THE early church fathers. I have read my entire Ante-Nicene Fathers.

The books I referenced are the English translations of the Council records, Creeds, and letters of the Early Church, beginning from 50 AD and going to about the middle of the 8th century in the case of Jurgens, and up to Vatican I in the case of Denzinger. They are not books “about” these things; they are the actual records and letters, translated into English.

No, they are not. Two seperate words in Greek and Clement uses them both. One in reference to the OT and the other in reference to the office of the early church.

Yes, that’s true. A “presbyter” is a Christian priest; not a Jewish priest. You’re right that these are two different things.

 

[mark_a]

When and where did the Catholic Church depart from the truth and into error concerning moral teachings?

Faith teachings can be disputed 'til the cows come home and it won’t amount to a hill of beans if you can’t apply it to your life.

I have never had a Protestant answer this question. I even started a thread asking the same question and was ignored.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

When and where did the Catholic Church depart from the truth and into error concerning moral teachings?

Faith teachings can be disputed 'til the cows come home and it won’t amount to a hill of beans if you can’t apply it to your life.

I have never had a Protestant answer this question. I even started a thread asking the same question and was ignored.

They can’t answer it because they know that Martin Luther or any of the exponentially divisive and protesting organizations after him would be the wrong answer.

If they were to study the true history then they would have to cease to protest.

 

[mexilad]

I hard Father Benedict Groeschel tlak about this topic. It really made sense to me. To paraphrase him, Protestantism reflects the failure of Catholic people, not the Church. Alot of protestantism was founded on the desire to divorce and marry another, such as the Anglicans. Thank King henry the VIII.

Some was founded on misunderstanding of Holy Scripture and the Magisteriam. This would be the case wtih Luther. Luther wanted to reject the Epistle of St. James. He refered to it as, “The epistle of straw.” He also said the Rosary. That is something a lot of protestants who have a problem with Marian Doctirine have aproblem addressing.

I fell away from the Catholic Church in my teens. I was a cradle Catholic. I got into evangelical protestantism, and eventually found my way back to the Catholic Church. It’s a long story of an involved journey of faith. One thing I have learned along the way is that The Church does not error. People do. God works it all out.

 

[rr1213]

You get it. In that case, could you explain it to us please?

You’re Catholic. I figure that you understand the position of Church vis-a-vis it’s inability to err on matters of faith and morals.

 

[rr1213]

One thing I have learned along the way is that The Church does not error. People do. God works it all out.

This is like saying that Enron itself is incapable of committing a criminal act, only its officers and directors can do so. And, yes, I am fully aware that Enron never had any guarantees from God Almighty, but the analogy still holds.

 

[Contarini]

First of all, the Catholic church has not been around since the Apostles… It started officially in the 4th century

I cannot think of any meaningful sense in which this statement is true. I suppose it simply means that you think you see for the first time in the fourth century the aspects of modern Catholicism that you dislike. But your use of the word “officially” implies something more than that, surely.

These churches grew to hundreds of thousands of members and eventually started smaller “satellite” churches which were governed by the original church. This was thier first mistake as each church is supposed to be autonomous. These, as they were called “Metropolitans” started meeting together to decide how to tell the smaller churches to believe… these meetings were called “counsels”.

That’s not quite fair. Councils are generally made up of bishops, not just metropolitans–and many bishops in the fourth century had very tiny sees–they were the leaders of Christian churches in small, remote areas.

The Nicene Creed made one very important change from the Apostles Creed. The Apostles Creed referenced a “catholic” church in a spiritual universal sense… The Nicene Creed referenced a Catholic church in a wordly institutionalized sense,

Since the word is exactly the same, how on earth do you make this distinction? It seems to me, frankly, that you are simply inventing it because it helps you make your case. Why do you think the word means one thing in one Creed and another in another–especially since the Nicene Creed actually precedes the formulation of the Apostle’s Creed in the exact shape we now possess!

and they added the word Apostolic… to mean that the catholic church is a continuation of Apostolic teaching.

Their doctrine has changed over the years… but I believe the Catholic church as an institution is easy for people to accept because It’s hard to understand a “spiritual church” from our mortal viewpoint.

Well, my experience is that a “spiritual church” is very flattering to a certain kind of self-deluded elitist Christian. I am not accusing you–I am thinking of my own grandmother, and worse, of the people with far less wisdom and maturity who drank up her teaching on the "invisible Church.’

Edwin

 

[Techno2000]

This is like saying that Enron itself is incapable of committing a criminal act, only its officers and directors can do so. And, yes, I am fully aware that Enron never had any guarantees from God Almighty, but the analogy still holds.

If the Catholic Church Only rested in Mans Hands, it would have fallen apart a long time ago.