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

[paarsurrey]

Your question pre-supposes that the Catholic Church departed from the truth. I reject that assertion. Rather than become involved in an interminable argument, I can only assert to you, that while individual Catholics can error in judgment, Holy Church does not error in doctrine.

Hi
I cannot understand you logic,please. If one human being can err, then a collection of more or many human beings (forming into a church) could also err; the possiblity is always there and should be accepted.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics

 

[jmcrae]

This is like saying that Enron itself is incapable of committing a criminal act, only its officers and directors can do so.

If they do so apart from the principles and public stand of Enron, then they are acting on their own.

If they do so collectively, and as representatives of Enron, then it is Enron that has committed the crime. Of course Enron cannot be found guilty or sentenced, so the directors stand in its place and they are the ones who go to jail.

Meanwhile, Enron continues on, under new leadership.

With regard to the Church, the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from the second situation. When Popes and Bishops have sinned, it has always been on their own time, so to speak. They have never done so on behalf of, or while speaking for, the Church.

The worst of our Popes, the one whose name I’ve now forgotten, who was killed in a bar fight - when he went to the bar, he didn’t say, “I declare and define that drunkenness and violence are now okay, although a moment ago they were immoral.”

When he got into the brawl, it wasn’t the Church getting into the brawl. The Church was still teaching that drunken brawling is at least a venial sin, and probably a mortal sin if done intentionally, even as the Pope was actually doing it.

The person who bopped him on the head and gave him the wound that he eventually died from didn’t even realize that he was really the Pope.

 

[rr1213]

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

Of course, you could say exactly the same for the Orthodox Churches, the Islamic faith, the Buddist faith…each of these have been around for a very long time as well.

 

[rr1213]

If they do so apart from the principles and public stand of Enron, then they are acting on their own.

If they do so collectively, and as representatives of Enron, then it is Enron that has committed the crime. Of course Enron cannot be found guilty or sentenced, so the directors stand in its place and they are the ones who go to jail.

Meanwhile, Enron continues on, under new leadership.

With regard to the Church, the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from the second situation. When Popes and Bishops have sinned, it has always been on their own time, so to speak. They have never done so on behalf of, or while speaking for, the Church.

The worst of our Popes, the one whose name I’ve now forgotten, who was killed in a bar fight - when he went to the bar, he didn’t say, “I declare and define that drunkenness and violence are now okay, although a moment ago they were immoral.”

When he got into the brawl, it wasn’t the Church getting into the brawl. The Church was still teaching that drunken brawling is at least a venial sin, and probably a mortal sin if done intentionally, even as the Pope was actually doing it.

The person who bopped him on the head and gave him the wound that he eventualy died from didn’t even realize that he was really the Pope.

I hadn’t heard about this fellow!

 

[jmcrae]

I hadn’t heard about this fellow!

There were three really bad Popes - they were all in a row, and I’ve forgotten all of their names. I think he was the last of the three, some time in the mid to late 1400s. The only reason I remember that story is because there is a sketch about it in Blackadder, in the episode where they make Blackadder to be Bishop of Canterbury - he’s hearing a really awful confession, and he says something like, “Oh, that’s not so bad - even the Pope does that!”

 

[rr1213]

There were three really bad Popes - they were all in a row, and I’ve forgotten all of their names. I think he was the last of the three, some time in the mid to late 1400s. The only reason I remember that story is because there is a sketch about it in Blackadder, in the episode where they make Blackadder to be Bishop of Canterbury - he’s hearing a really awful confession, and he says something like, “Oh, that’s not so bad - even the Pope does that!”

Ahhh, Rowan Atkinson!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

rr1213:

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.

Ah, so the evasion begins. I said this:
Ani Ibi:

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

The question was directed to you. If you can’t answer this question – or won’t – then it is obvious that you concede that the answer to the question “When did the Church depart from Truth into Error?” is …

… never.

The point is to reach a common understanding of what is in question. To do that, we need you to answer my question. From there we can proceed to a reasonable answer.

 

[jmcrae]

Ah, so the evasion begins. I said this:

The question was directed to you. If you can’t answer this question – or won’t – then it is obvious that you concede that the answer to the question “When did the Church depart from Truth into Error?” is …

… never.

The point is to reach a common understanding of what is in question. To do that, we need you to answer my question. From there we can proceed to a reasonable answer.

Ani, could you please read the whole thread? The purpose of the discussion is to discern precisely this point. It is in fact the question at hand.

He has already said numerous times that he already knows the Catholic position.

What he would like to know is whether there is, in fact, a Protestant response to this position.

 

[Rightlydivide]

=jmcrae;2240443]Linus was the successor of Peter, and head of the whole Church. Barnabas was a Bishop; not an Apostle.

Act 14:14 [Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Catholic Encyclopedia:
"

The word Apostle has also in the New Testament a larger meaning, and denotes some inferior disciples who, under the direction of the Apostles, preached the Gospel, or contributed to its diffusion; thus Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14), probably Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), Epaphroditus (Phil., ii, 25), two unknown Christians who were delegated for the collection in Corinth (2 Corinthians 7:23). We know not why the honourable name of Apostle is not given to such illustrious missionaries as Timothy, Titus, and others who would equally merit it."

newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm

 

[Mannyfit75]

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104dr.asp Interesting article from a former Protestant

 

[jmcrae]

Act 14:14 [Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Catholic Encyclopedia:
"
newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm

Whatever. Fine.

My point remains. St. Barnabas was not an Apostle in the same sense of the word as St. Paul was. St. Linus was the Pope.

I forget already what we were talking about, anyway.

Let’s get back to the purpose of the thread.

According to you, on what date did Christ’s Church apostasize, thus making it permissible to depart from it and form one’s own Church, according to one’s own idea of how Christ’s errors ought to be corrected?

 

[Mannyfit75]

So far, the Protestants have not set a date. Even if they have date, can they agree what date the CC depart from the truth?

The CC has never departed from the Truth, if she did, it would contradict 1 Tim 3:15 completely.

 

[christcnection1]

Hypothetically, let’s just say that true “Biblical Christianity” is best reflected in one particular “Fundamentalist” denomination. Now, if you believe reading the Early Church Fathers is a fairly accurate way of determining early Church beliefs, it becomes pretty clear that not one denomination is like the early Church, in a holistic sense.

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.

 

[SyCarl]

So far, the Protestants have not set a date. Even if they have date, can they agree what date the CC depart from the truth?

The CC has never departed from the Truth, if she did, it would contradict 1 Tim 3:15 completely.

There is no specific date because it did not suddenly happen. It was a gradual departure that has never been completed because the Roman Catholic Church still holds much truth. As to 1 Tim 3:15, it is not contradicted if you view the true church as an invisible body of all believers. For now just one scriptural indication of the difference between the visible and invisible church. In 1 John 2:19 the Apostle tells us that the antichrists went out from them but had not really been of them. Before they went out they would have been members of the visible church but, as John says, they were never members of the true church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

There is no specific date because it did not suddenly happen. It was a gradual departure that has never been completed because the Roman Catholic Church still holds much truth. As to 1 Tim 3:15, it is not contradicted if you view the true church as an invisible body of all believers. For now just one scriptural indication of the difference between the visible and invisible church. In 1 John 2:19 the Apostle tells us that the antichrists went out from them but had not really been of them. Before they went out they would have been members of the visible church but, as John says, they were never members of the true church.

The Catholic Church acknowledge the Church is both invisible and visible. We know it is visible because Jesus establish His Church upon Peter.

There has been heretics that the Church Council condemn like Bishop Arian and Nestorian as well as other which taught different doctrines and these doctrine were condemned by the Early Church.

The Church itself cannot fall into heretical doctrines. The Catholic Church has not taught any erroneous doctrines and therefore did not depart from the Truth.

It’s members can fall and proclaim heretical views, which the Church as the sole guardian of Truth, must condemned. That is why you have heard the Catholic Church is oppose to homosexual unions, abortions, the use of contraception, etc. Departure from the Truth, is departing from Jesus Christ himself. Do we see the Catholic Church depart from this? No.

The Church has been an avocate for the poor, and Pope Benedict XVI stress the Latin American in Brazil to abstain for sex, which fall on deaf ears. As the Successor of St. Peter, they refuse to listen to the Ambassabor of Christ, the Shepard whom Jesus called to “fed my sheep.”

The Anti-Christ is anyone person who denies Jesus as Truth God and Truth Man.

 

[jmcrae]

There is no specific date because it did not suddenly happen.

What was the tipping point, then? When did it cease to be Christ’s Church?

 

[SyCarl]

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.

While you may not accept the concept of the invisible Church, I believe that there was always such a Church so God did keep his Church on track.

And yes error did start to enter the early churches at an early date, in fact while the Apostles were still alive. That is why letters were necessary to combat the Judacizers and how Jude could talk of un-Godly persons creeping in. The trend became accelerated when Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and membership was required. That massive influx of people who had not joined because of their belief could only cause problems.

 

[Mannyfit75]

While you may not accept the concept of the invisible Church, I believe that there was always such a Church so God did keep his Church on track.

And yes error did start to enter the early churches at an early date, in fact while the Apostles were still alive. That is why letters were necessary to combat the Judacizers and how Jude could talk of un-Godly persons creeping in. The trend became accelerated when Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and membership was required. That massive influx of people who had not joined because of their belief could only cause problems.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Church is both invisible and visible.

Protestants only believe in the invisible Church.

CCC states:

770 The Church is in history, but at the same time she transcends it. It is only "with the eyes of faith"183 that one can see her in her visible reality and at the same time in her spiritual reality as bearer of divine life.

The Church - both visible and spiritual

771 "The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope, and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men."184 The Church is at the same time:

• a "society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ;

• the visible society and the spiritual community;

• the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches."185

These dimensions together constitute “one complex reality which comes together from a human and a divine element”:186

The Church is essentially both human and divine, visible but endowed with invisible realities, zealous in action and dedicated to contemplation, present in the world, but as a pilgrim, so constituted that in her the human is directed toward and subordinated to the divine, the visible to the invisible, action to contemplation, and this present world to that city yet to come, the object of our quest.187

O humility! O sublimity! Both tabernacle of cedar and sanctuary of God; earthly dwelling and celestial palace; house of clay and royal hall; body of death and temple of light; and at last both object of scorn to the proud and bride of Christ! She is black but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, for even if the labor and pain of her long exile may have discolored her, yet heaven’s beauty has adorned her.188

 

[SyCarl]

Protestants do believe in the visible church and that it does have teaching authrity. However the visible church is not infallible and its teaching is subject to the final authority of Scripture

 

[Mannyfit75]

Protestants do believe in the visible church and that it does have teaching authrity. However the visible church is not infallible and its teaching is subject to the final authority of Scripture

If the Church does not have authority then the Bible has no authority since it was the Church who compiled a list of the 27 NT Books and form the Bible in the Council of Carthage in 396 A.D. The Church was before the Bible. When I say Bible I mean both OT and NT.

Back then, the Bible was the same we see today. They were scattered and written in scrolls or parchments made from paparis (that’s where we got the word paper from).

The Church does have authority because it has both a human and divine nature. Second if you claim it is not infallible when by what authority did the Apostle have when they decided to say it was ok for Gentiles not to be circumcised. They did not appeal to Scripture, they appeal to the testimony of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas.

The Church has more authority than the Bible.