The historicity of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isaiah45_9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
nmgauss said:
That’s like saying that Yahweh as defined in the Old Testament is the same as the God portrayed in the New Testament. If that is so, and God never changes, how can a cruel, spiteful God who kills people because they do not obey be reconciled with a kind merciful God? Maybe Marcion was right after all.

If burning at the stake was perpetrated during the Inquisition, but it is not practiced now, how can one say that it’s the same church? If the brutal Crusades were sponsored by Pope Urban II, and the church is the same as the one established at Pentecost, why has the church presented itself as against wars? It’s the same church! If the church cannot extol its accomplishments during the Crusades, then it is a different church.
Click to expand...
Like an individual the Church can err in her actions, but not in her teachings which were given to her by Christ through the apostles (Christ promised the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her). Moreover, the Roman inquisition was a tribunal or rather a court that tried individuals for heresy and other related issues, but it has in the history of its existence allowed very few executions. I do not condone these executions, however, unrepentant heretics that were handed over and executed and/or imprisoned by the state were not only dangerous to the populace at large because of the damage they could inflict spiritually (think of the religious wars that inflicted England, France, and Germany), but many of them held radical views that threatened the stability of the realm. As such, Church and State worked in tandem or rather there was little separation between the two.

The Church has professed regret for the usage of such actions, and in our catechism it states:
In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors (no. 2298).
Click to expand...
And Pope John Paul II referring to the errors of the Inquisition wrote:
Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.”
Click to expand...
For a further understanding of the Inquisition, please read this article that delineates and assesses the reasons for the implementation of these tribunals that were very much influenced by the adoption of Roman law by the states in Europe during the Renaissance.

catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0029.html

p.s. The Church once it was recognized by the state had the protection of that government in order to establish truth against heresy, as such, Emperors were allowed to convene councils and administer justice (be it fines or capital punishment) vis a vis heretics, in fact, Emperor Justinian (565 A.D.) created the Corpus Iuris Civilis (code of law).
 
nmgauss said:
Who established the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, and was this doctrine established at Pentecost?
Click to expand...
Christ and the Apostles.

Christ breathed on the Apostles.
The Apostles named Mathias to succeed Judas Iscariot.
The Apostles choose Deacons
Paul is confirmed by the Apostles

It’s all over Scriptures.
It’s all over Church history.

Christ chooses the Apostles, the Apostles choose their successors, and the successors carry on.
 
edkw55 said:
The One True Church established by Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church.

True or False?

Let’s play make believe here, total fantasy land you must be crazy kinda stuff and, just for the sake of argument, say that the response to the above statement is “false” while still insisting that the Church truly did begin on the day of Pentecost and continues to exist to this very day. Any thoughts???

Ed
Click to expand...
Really…

Could you please address the point in question?

If there is no apostolic succession then there was no Church at one point in time.

Can you show at what point in time after Pentecost there was no Church?
 
nmgauss said:
How does the Papal Schism figure into the apostolic succession?
Click to expand...
At one point in time (Early 1400’s), there were 3 persons claiming to be Popes:
John XXIII, Benedict XIII, and Gregory XII (the rightful pope).

In the Council of Constance (1414), John XXIII was deposed and dismissed Benedict XIII.

In 1417, the Western Schism ended with the election of Pope Martin V.

With all these problems the Episcopacy has always been there.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
At one point in time (Early 1400’s), there were 3 persons claiming to be Popes:
John XXIII, Benedict XIII, and Gregory XII (the rightful pope).

In the Council of Constance (1414), John XXIII was deposed and dismissed Benedict XIII.

In 1417, the Western Schism ended with the election of Pope Martin V.

With all these problems the Episcopacy has always been there.
Click to expand...
Pope john the 23 rd??? Oops. I ain’t that old.
 
edkw55 said:
I admitted in a previous post that you are absolutely right. Nowhere in the Bible does it make a claim of being the only authority. I cannot show you verses that do not exist.I can only state what I believe regarding the authority of the Bible. Sola Scriptura.
Click to expand...
Hey, they are so many:
Let me start with the Old Testament.
Joshua:1:8: This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
Deut 28:58-59: If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY, Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
Deut:6:6-7: And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

In the New Testament:
Luke 21:33: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Mark 13:31: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Matt:5:18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus very clearly gave authority to the OT writings and to what he said.
 
josie_L said:
Hi Ed,

Have you ever read any books from Thomas Howard, because I would like to recommend two of his books, i.e., “Becoming Catholic” and “Evangelical Is Not Enough”. Here are some of the reviews for his books:

amazon.com/On-Being-Catholic-Thomas-Howard/dp/0898706084

amazon.com/Evangelical-Not-Enough-Worship-Sacrament/dp/0898702216/ref=pd_sim_b_2/178-5585476-9654469?ie=UTF8&refRID=1M3TJBSEBBMYS8PZ3Z5E
Click to expand...
I’ve read many of the popular books written by Catholic apologist like Scott Hahn, Rod Bennett, David Currie, Karl Keating, Steven Ray, Thomas Howard and others. I’ve also read a lot of books by Catholic authors on other subjects as well. Yes, I am a big time book worm.

Yesterday I started reading through the CCC again(this will be the third time). The CCC has had by far more impact on me then any other Catholic book I have read!

Thanks and God bless you.

Ed
 
edkw55 said:
I’ve read many of the popular books written by Catholic apologist like Scott Hahn, Rod Bennett, David Currie, Karl Keating, Steven Ray, Thomas Howard and others. I’ve also read a lot of books by Catholic authors on other subjects as well. Yes, I am a big time book worm.

Yesterday I started reading through the CCC again(this will be the third time). The CCC has had by far more impact on me then any other Catholic book I have read!

Thanks and God bless you.

Ed
Click to expand...
Hi ED: I would like to chime in here and just say reading and understanding the CCC is I think the best way of knowing what the Catholic faith is what we believe. It is something to read often as one can.
 
Code:
edkw55 said:
I’ve read many of the popular books written by Catholic apologist like Scott Hahn, Rod Bennett, David Currie, Karl Keating, Steven Ray, Thomas Howard and others. I’ve also read a lot of books by Catholic authors on other subjects as well. Yes, I am a big time book worm.

Yesterday I started reading through the CCC again(this will be the third time). The CCC has had by far more impact on me then any other Catholic book I have read!

Thanks and God bless you.

Ed
Click to expand...
Then from another book worm:

You can also read: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ott) and Sources of Catholic Dogma (Denzinger).
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
I offered you the list of Popes and you ignored it.

[If] there is no apostolic succession, then there was no Church at that point in time.

So it is easier for you to believe that the Church was absent, the body of Christ abandoned on the earth without any successors… Than it is to believe that there is…

Could you please elaborate?
Click to expand...
Hi Jose,

This is why I pointed out in an earlier post that most Catholics and Protestants have a very poor understanding of what one another really believes making our discussion about Authority difficult. As a Protestant I was really pretty ignorant about what Catholics really believe until a couple of years ago when I felt drawn to the Catholic Church and began reading lots of books and researching Roman Catholicism. I would recommend that you do a little research about what Protestants really believe???

Ed
 
spina1953 said:
Hi ED: I would like to chime in here and just say reading and understanding the CCC is I think the best way of knowing what the Catholic faith is what we believe. It is something to read often as one can.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. The CCC is an incredibly beautiful book…awesome!

I often wonder how many Catholics have even read through the CCC?

Ed
 
edkw55 said:
Hi Jose,

This is why I pointed out in an earlier post that most Catholics and Protestants have a very poor understanding of what one another really believes making our discussion about Authority difficult. As a Protestant I was really pretty ignorant about what Catholics really believe until a couple of years ago when I felt drawn to the Catholic Church and began reading lots of books and researching Roman Catholicism. I would recommend that you do a little research about what Protestants really believe???

Ed
Click to expand...
I did Ed, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on what I perceive as a patronizing tone.

For more than 10 years I did. The Solas, the different Confessions, different books from Protestantism and not only books but actual conversations with Pastor and Professors from different denominations.

I am not the one saying that Apostolic Succession can’t be proven. I’m not the one saying Scriptures is the highest authority.

I am the one saying that the Church has always been present since Christ and that the Church has always had succession. One Church.

I am the one challenging your comments. I have answered questions, whereas mine remain unanswered.

So let’s stay in subject, please.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
I did Ed, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on what I perceive as a patronizing tone.

For more than 10 years I did. The Solas, the different Confessions, different books from Protestantism and not only books but actual conversations with Pastor and Professors from different denominations.

I am not the one saying that Apostolic Succession can’t be proven. I’m not the one saying Scriptures is the highest authority.

I am the one saying that the Church has always been present since Christ and that the Church has always had succession. One Church.

I am the one challenging your comments. I have answered questions, whereas mine remain unanswered.

So let’s stay in subject, please.
Click to expand...
It was not my intention to come across as patronizing.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
I did Ed, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on what I perceive as a patronizing tone.

For more than 10 years I did. The Solas, the different Confessions, different books from Protestantism and not only books but actual conversations with Pastor and Professors from different denominations.

I am not the one saying that Apostolic Succession can’t be proven. I’m not the one saying Scriptures is the highest authority.

I am the one saying that the Church has always been present since Christ and that the Church has always had succession. One Church.

I am the one challenging your comments. I have answered questions, whereas mine remain unanswered.

So let’s stay in subject, please.
Click to expand...
We both agree that the Church is one and has been present since Pentecost and continues to be present today.

Is this correct?
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Lutherans have not only returned to apostolic succession but embrace it: “a bishop cannot have regular or valid orders unless he has been consecrated in this apostolic succession.” [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession]). Some Lutherans maintained AS without interruption going back to the Christian founders/ saints in Europe.
Click to expand...
As I understand it some Lutheran denominations accept the Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Succession and some don’t. I have no idea what the stats are. At one time I was a member of the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) and they don’t accept the Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Succession. But, like I said, I have no idea as far as stats.

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top