The Catholic Church known today is NOT the same Catholic Church in the time of the apostles?

[Petergee]

I will have to respectfully disagree, in North America, at least, Christians are NOT persecuted. Some Christians might have persecution complexes, but I’ve never heard of a Christian being fired from their job or denied custody of their kids just for BEING Christian. In places like China? Sure, but so are all other “foreign” religions. Interestingly, once they stopped persecuting Christians in Japan, the number of Christians in that country started to decline,

False. Once the pereution stopped and ever since, the number of Christians in Japn has been increasing.

but Japan has never really had a good relationship with Christianity to start with.

Could you name any country which “had a good relationship with Christianity to start with”?

I contrast, members of minority religions (including Pagans, like me) put our jobs and children at risk, just for being who we are.

In North America? Absolute nonsense. For one thing it’s illegal. For another thing, if it ever really happened, the antiChristian media and civil-liberties organisations would be screaming about it from the rooftops. Unlike when it happens to Christians which they ignore.

It’s true there is LITTLE real persecution of Chrstians in N America, but there as everywhere else, Christians are MORE persecuted than any other grup.

There’s a good reason many of us stay in the “broom closet”. I could give you a few anecdotes (including one woman whose house was burnt to the ground because her fanatical neighbours wanted to get rid of the “witch” who lived there) but anecdotal evidence is spotty at best, so you probably wouldn’t believe me anyways.

Sure we’'d believe you if you gave us names, dates and places, but of course you won’t because your story is pure invention.

 

[Petergee]

Quite possible. But we already concluded that a valid baptism doesn’t have to be done by a Catholic minister. So it doesn’t matter.

Yes it does. Although he became a Christian by his baptism, he was not thereby received into communion with the Catholic Church. Unless you are claiming that this “doesn’t matter”.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

I will have to respectfully disagree, in North America, at least, Christians are NOT persecuted. Some Christians might have persecution complexes, but I’ve never heard of a Christian being fired from their job or denied custody of their kids just for BEING Christian. In places like China? Sure, but so are all other “foreign” religions. Interestingly, once they stopped persecuting Christians in Japan, the number of Christians in that country started to decline, but Japan has never really had a good relationship with Christianity to start with.

I contrast, members of minority religions (including Pagans, like me) put our jobs and children at risk, just for being who we are. There’s a good reason many of us stay in the “broom closet”. I could give you a few anecdotes (including one woman whose house was burnt to the ground because her fanatical neighbours wanted to get rid of the “witch” who lived there) but anecdotal evidence is spotty at best, so you probably wouldn’t believe me anyways.

Anyways, this is getting off topic, sorry everyone.

It still ties in with the Early Church because the Early Church was persecuted, and the modern Catholic Church and her sister Churches are still being persecute throughout the world today. So not only the fact certain important aspects of the church hasn’t change the way the church is treated hasn’t change either. The Catholic Church hasn’t changed from a Church where her members where being persecuted to where the Church isn’t persecution at all. And in America Christians might not suffer the same as throughout the world, but there is a “white martyrdom” that takes place, where they might suffer physically for there faith, they still none the less suffer for there faith. And the Christian Faith itself is being persecuted and marginalize.

No group I know of has not been persecuted in some way, and it’s a shame what happened to your friend or the person you know. And it is plausible so there is no reason to doubt you.

 

[CatholicZ09]

Another thing that I hear from Non-Catholics is that when Jesus is talking with Peter in Matt. 16:18, he is actually talking about himself.

Here’s Matt. 16:18

"You are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church."

Now, how is Jesus talking about himself when he addresses Peter specifically? It seems like a pretty weak claim.

SIGH

 

[JackVk]

1. From my perspective, I’d say the present day Catholic Church owes more to the Medieval European Church than the Christianity that was around before Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman Empire.
2. Doctrinally, I’d also say that it changed quite a bit (particularly after it went from a small sect to an institution). Marian theology in particular was greatly expanded in the Medieval church (although scholars disagree as to whether the Marian cult elevated or lowered the status of women).
3. I guess I don’t really understand this obsession with trying to make the church seem changeless. All religions change, but of course, I’m a Pagan, and modern day Paganisms are very far-removed from their ancient counterparts.

1. Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. All the Edict of Milan did was add Christianity to the lsit of Rome’s tolerated religions, where it had not been before.
2. It is improper to say “Marian theology”, because Mary is a woman, not a goddess. The term you are looking for is “Mariology”. And if you read the writings of the Early Church Fathers, they DID have Mariology.
3. There is a difference between a religion “changing” and merely “developing”. An acorn’s genetic material doesn’t change when it grows into an oak tree, does it? The same principle with the Church.

 

[ChurchAuthority]

Another thing that I hear from Non-Catholics is that when Jesus is talking with Peter in Matt. 16:18, he is actually talking about himself.

Here’s Matt. 16:18

Now, how is Jesus talking about himself when he addresses Peter specifically? It seems like a pretty weak claim.

SIGH

Jesus actually said, “You are*** Kepha (large massive boulder) and on this Kepha** *I will build my church” - so, he couldn’t have been referringt to himself.

 

[ChurchAuthority]

Well, do you still worship in house churches–no, I don’t mean a “house of God”, I mean celebrate Mass in someone’s house?

I certainly don’t recall anyone conducting ceremonies in catacombs, either.
Oh, and there’s not much by way of persecution (at least in North America).

So, because there is ***no ***need for Catholics in America to hide, the Church does not resemble the Early Church? That’s a silly argument.

I will say this, however: Anybody looking for a church that resembles the Early Church EXACTLY is barking up the wrong tree anyway. The Church has grown from the mustard seed to the great plant - the acorn to the oak. Just as our bodies grow, so must the church, which is a*** living organism***.

From my perspective, I’d say the present day Catholic Church owes more to the Medieval European Church than the Christianity that was around before Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Doctrinally, I’d also say that it changed quite a bit (particularly after it went from a small sect to an institution). Marian theology in particular was greatly expanded in the Medieval church (although scholars disagree as to whether the Marian cult elevated or lowered the status of women).

I guess I don’t really understand this obsession with trying to make the church seem changeless. All religions change, but of course, I’m a Pagan, and modern day Paganisms are very far-removed from their ancient counterparts.

The Church of today owes*** everything *to the Holy Spirit which has guided it from the beginning and led it to ALL truth (John 16:12-15). **The same Holy Spirit which guided the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers down through the centuries to today. People grow and change appearance - God’s truth never does.

 

[cargau]

So, I heard an argument recently from protestants that the Catholic Church as it is known today is NOT the same church in the time of the early Church Fathers, apostles, etc. Doesn’t that contradict what Jesus says in Matthew 16:18?

Another accusation that I hear is that Constantine founded the Roman Catholic Church, which I find kind of bizarre because early writings dating to 107 AD state the Church as “Catholic”.

Protestants are merely trying to justify their own error.

Yesterday, we celebrated the birth of our nation. Can we reasonably say that we are not the same nation we were in 1776? Of course!

The point is that a development over time resulting in change is not the same as a complete break. History shows that the roots of Catholicism take hold in Christ and there was never a time when a break took place to separate the Catholic Church from the one that existed on that first Pentecost.

Protestant religions that were spurred on by various men and women cannot make the same claim.

 

[ChurchAuthority]

I will have to respectfully disagree, in North America, at least, Christians are NOT persecuted. Some Christians might have persecution complexes, but I’ve never heard of a Christian being fired from their job or denied custody of their kids just for BEING Christian. In places like China? Sure, but so are all other “foreign” religions. Interestingly, once they stopped persecuting Christians in Japan, the number of Christians in that country started to decline, but Japan has never really had a good relationship with Christianity to start with.

I contrast, members of minority religions (including Pagans, like me) put our jobs and children at risk, just for being who we are. There’s a good reason many of us stay in the “broom closet”. I could give you a few anecdotes (including one woman whose house was burnt to the ground because her fanatical neighbours wanted to get rid of the “witch” who lived there) but anecdotal evidence is spotty at best, so you probably wouldn’t believe me anyways.

And you would be wrong.

Not only is Christianity in general the most persecuted religion in the world - the Catholic Church is the most persecuted because it the the spring from which ALL Christian denominations flowed. Yes, even here in America. We don’t have the luxury of "staying in the broom closet as you put it because, as Jesus said of his Church:
*“You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.
Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house.
Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.” * (Matt. 5:14-16)

Persecution isn’t necessarily the killing of Christians - it is the assault on Christianity and no Church is more assaulted in the media than the Catholic Church because it is a monolith. Jesus foretold this persecution in *John 15:18: ** *
“If the world hates you, remember that it hated me first."

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The story about Constantine organizing the Catholic Church or the Christian Church in general is a legend, at best. It was popularized by the movie Zeigheist, which is in itself a load of nonsense.

Contrary to popular belief, the 313 Edict of Milan did not declare Christianity the state religion - it only accorded it official tolerance by the Roman government. Christianity wouldn’t become the official state religion until the reign of Theodosius, long after Constantine’s death.

Constantine did not commission a Bible, he did not turn against mainstream Christianity for refuting the Arian heresy despite the many Arians in his own court.

I’m surprised that any non-Catholcs at all raise it to target the Catholic Church. Because if the theory were correct (and it’s nonsense), then it would delegitimize all of Christianity, because its central event had to do with affirming the deity of Christ.

I’ve heard atheists and non-Trinitarians try to advance this theory, but never a fellow Christian. If it’s true it’s terribly disappointing.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I will have to respectfully disagree, in North America, at least, Christians are NOT persecuted. Some Christians might have persecution complexes, but I’ve never heard of a Christian being fired from their job or denied custody of their kids just for BEING Christian. In places like China? Sure, but so are all other “foreign” religions. Interestingly, once they stopped persecuting Christians in Japan, the number of Christians in that country started to decline, but Japan has never really had a good relationship with Christianity to start with.

I contrast, members of minority religions (including Pagans, like me) put our jobs and children at risk, just for being who we are. There’s a good reason many of us stay in the “broom closet”. I could give you a few anecdotes (including one woman whose house was burnt to the ground because her fanatical neighbours wanted to get rid of the “witch” who lived there) but anecdotal evidence is spotty at best, so you probably wouldn’t believe me anyways.

Anyways, this is getting off topic, sorry everyone.

I don’t really agree with you.

The way popular culture has evolved, people have been appearing more approving of paganism than of Christianity. Christianity is often caricatured as an evil, aggressive religion that exterminated pagans (which is false) and ruthlessly invaded Islamic lands in order to convert the Muslims (also false). Almost all Catholic priests are depicted as paedophiles, and Protestant/Evangelical ministers are painted as either secretly gay, hateful of everybody under the sun, and/or greedy.

You can give anecdotal evidence of pagan persecution, well there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of Christian persecution too.

Interestingly I don’t see many pagan symbols today desecrated for the sake of insulting pagans. However I do see Christian symbols, such as the crucifix, being used as sex toys in gay festivals like the Folsom Street fair, Eucharist hosts being desecrated, Communion as a tradition being mocked (see the Doritos and Pepsi Communion commercial), Judas being presented as preferrable to Jesus (see Lady Gaga’s “Judas” being launched on Holy Week), the Virgin Mary being presented with feces all over her in paintings.

Paganism is presented as a pop and trendy alternative to Christianity. I simply do not believe that pagans are being regularly discriminated for their faith - especially not on a large scale. If it were true, the media would blast it on every television channel and on every radio station. It would be a national scandal.

 

[Radical]

There’s only one correct interpretation of Scripture – and that’s the meaning the author intended to convey. Since the Church selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament when she was nearly 400 years old, she knows what they mean.

I don’t know that you could provide a better example of question begging if you tried. You assume that the Church of the end of the 4th century is the same as the Church of the first century…so that the books of the NT are “her own”…and this would only be relevant if you also assumed that the Catholic Church of today is the same as the Church of the fourth century. You also seem to be equating a fraction of the hierarchy with the Church itself (in describing the actions of the councils at the end of the fourth century). Finally, even if we put those problems aside, you would need to provide some sort of proof that “B” (that the current Catholic hierarchy has the authority to declare the meaning of scripture) follows from “A” (the fact that small councils at the end of the 4th century formally declared what the Church, as a whole, had already established by practice). I don’t think that you could provide such a proof and so you would be thrown back to relying on apostolic succession…and there again, it seems that your claim would rely upon circular reasoning (you know, something along the lines of: the hierarchy of the CC is the proper successor to the apostles and we know this to be true b/c the hierarchy of the CC says so and it must be right b/c it is the proper successor to the apostles). Your position is really founded on faith and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that (after all, we share a position wrt the divinity of Christ which is also founded on faith). Your faith in the CC may even be a reasonable faith, but that doesn’t mean that a Protestant is acting unreasonably in not sharing your faith…his rejection may also be reasonable. I have come to understand that reasonable people can and will disagree.

Do you mean that Catholics complain that Constantine founded all those thousands of Protestant ecclesial communities?

no, I haven’t seen that claim either…though it is not any worse than some claims that I have seen presented by Catholics.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Another thing that I hear from Non-Catholics is that when Jesus is talking with Peter in Matt. 16:18, he is actually talking about himself.

Here’s Matt. 16:18

Now, how is Jesus talking about himself when he addresses Peter specifically? It seems like a pretty weak claim.

SIGH

Perhaps you should ask St. Augustine that question, since he was one of those who made the “weak claim” that the rock upon which the Church will be built is Christ, not Peter.

 

[Silver_Spring]

Perhaps you should ask St. Augustine that question, since he was one of those who made the “weak claim” that the rock upon which the Church will be built is Christ, not Peter.

St. Augustine: “Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom. This is the rock which the gates of hell do not prevail.”

St. Augustine: “The Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

St. Augustine: “Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom. This is the rock which the gates of hell do not prevail.”

St. Augustine: “The Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.”

I wasn’t talking about the primacy of Rome in my post (for which both of those quotations are dubious support anyway); I was simply stating that there is patristic support for the idea that “the rock” in Matthew 16:18 is Christ, namely from St. Augustine. Neither of those quotations are relevant to Matthew 16:18. This quote, however, from his Sermon 76, does explain his views. “Thou art therefore, saith He, Peter, and upon this Rock which thou hast confessed, upon this rock, which thou hast acknowledged, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” I will build my Church. Upon Me I will build thee, not Me upon thee.”

He also mentions later in his Retractationes that, although he prefers the former, both interpretations of the rock being Christ and the rock being Peter are valid interpretations. In fact, three great Churchmen from that era, St. Basil, St. Augustine, and St. John Chrysostom all came to different conclusions as to what “the rock” is referring to; St. Basil takes it to mean Peter, St. John Chrysostom takes it to mean Peter’s confession of faith and St. Augustine takes it to mean Christ. There is no one correct interpretation of Matthew 16:18 or else the patristic writings would be in consensus. The truth is that the “correct” interpretation of Matthew 16:18 only became important once the papacy began to use it as a justification for increasing its power. Any “incorrect” interpretation would cause the entire justification for the pope’s existence as supreme pontiff to unravel, which also explains why, when I claimed that an “incorrect” interpretation of Matthew 16:18 was actually put forth by St. Augustine, I would receive in response quotes about the seat of Peter, a complete non sequitur, instead of quotes by St. Augustine about Matthew 16:18.

 

[KathleenGee]

The seat of Peter has always been here, but it has had to be re-defined a number of times in face of the growth of the Church and temporal society coinciding with the insights of science and reason.

 

[LOCO]

Another accusation that I hear is that Constantine founded the Roman Catholic Church, which I find kind of bizarre because early writings dating to 107 AD state the Church as “Catholic”.

After a miraculous event described below, Constantine formally legalised and recognised the Church’s right to practice their religion. He did not found Catholicism, it already existed and Christians were being persecuted by the Pagan tyrant in that State over the years.

Constantine only legalised all religions and made Catholicism the State religion. Much the same way the State legislates in most countries regarding ‘freedom to practice your religion’ without fear or favour.

**'Before Constantine advanced against his rival Maxentius, according to ancient custom he summoned the haruspices, who prophesied disaster; so reports a pagan panegyrist. But when the gods would not aid him, continues this writer, one particular god urged him on, for Constantine had close relations with the divinity itself. Under what form this connection with the deity manifested itself is told by Lactantius (How the Persecutors Died 44) and Eusebius (Life of Constantine I.26-31).

He saw, according to the one in a dream, according to the other in a vision, a heavenly manifestation, a brilliant light in which he believed he descried the cross or the monogram of Christ. Strengthened by this apparition, he advanced courageously to battle, defeated his rival and won the supreme power. It was the result that gave to this vision its full importance, for when the emperor afterwards reflected on the event it was clear to him that the cross bore the inscription: HOC VINCES (in this sign wilt thou conquer). A monogram combining the first letters, X and P, of the name of Christ (CHRISTOS), a form that cannot be proved to have been used by Christians before, was made one of the tokens of the standard and placed upon the Labarum.

In addition, this ensign was placed in the hand of a statue of the emperor at Rome, the pedestal of which bore the inscription: “By the aid of this salutary token of strength I have freed my city from the yoke of tyranny and restored to the Roman Senate and People the ancient splendour and glory.”**

Constantine himself did not convert to Catholicism until much later.

 

[KathleenGee]

To say that Constantine founded the Catholic Church…some body is falling for it line and sinker.

After 300 years of persecution and destructive invasions, it was a great grace for the Church that Constantine permitted it to practice its belief, as well as his rebuilding of many churches, refining them and creating a more grand sacred space, fitting for the Lord.

But as it is said here, he was not baptized til shortly before his death.

Baptism incorporates a person into the Catholic Church, into the Mystical Body of Christ whether they go to the Catholic Church or not.

 

[valentino]

The real Church has not changed.It just deloped.Great saints today follow the real Church and Christ’s teaching closer than ever.i doubt if ever there were greater saints than Mother Theresa or Padre Pio.Marytrs aren’t necessarily greater than non Martyrs.Although one can be a martyr without dying permanent physical death.They just died day to day to themselves which probably has as much value.

 

[valentino]

I wasn’t talking about the primacy of Rome in my post (for which both of those quotations are dubious support anyway); I was simply stating that there is patristic support for the idea that “the rock” in Matthew 16:18 is Christ, namely from St. Augustine. Neither of those quotations are relevant to Matthew 16:18. This quote, however, from his Sermon 76, does explain his views. “Thou art therefore, saith He, Peter, and upon this Rock which thou hast confessed, upon this rock, which thou hast acknowledged, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” I will build my Church. Upon Me I will build thee, not Me upon thee.”

He also mentions later in his Retractationes that, although he prefers the former, both interpretations of the rock being Christ and the rock being Peter are valid interpretations. In fact, three great Churchmen from that era, St. Basil, St. Augustine, and St. John Chrysostom all came to different conclusions as to what “the rock” is referring to; St. Basil takes it to mean Peter, St. John Chrysostom takes it to mean Peter’s confession of faith and St. Augustine takes it to mean Christ. There is no one correct interpretation of Matthew 16:18 or else the patristic writings would be in consensus. The truth is that the “correct” interpretation of Matthew 16:18 only became important once the papacy began to use it as a justification for increasing its power. Any “incorrect” interpretation would cause the entire justification for the pope’s existence as supreme pontiff to unravel, which also explains why, when I claimed that an “incorrect” interpretation of Matthew 16:18 was actually put forth by St. Augustine, I would receive in response quotes about the seat of Peter, a complete non sequitur, instead of quotes by St. Augustine about Matthew 16:18.

that’s right.Christians always recognized a head,father of the Church.At first the pope was elected by the community of christians.Later he was elected by the prior pope.Then later by the community of bishops,and so on till today by the college of cardinals i believe.