"The Old Church"

  • Thread starter Thread starter dtwgivens
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dtwgivens

Guest
Often, I will see Protestants (and non-Catholic Christians in general) refer to “the old church” when debating the early Christians, as if to suggest that there was another church that existed before the Catholic Church. I know that some Baptists believe that there has been an unbroken chain of churches since the days of Christ which have held similar beliefs of the current Baptist churches, and that some Protestants believe that the early Church was actually Orthodox and that the Catholic Church wasn’t created until the 4th century.
Any thoughts on this topic and on what church this “old Church” may be?
 
I think it is simply a way to talk about the early church without thinking about how catholic the early church was.
 
You can’t just set up a dividing line and have the New Testament Church over here and the RCC over there. It was a gradual process over many centuries of the church hierarchy adding new teaching (you all would call it “Doctrinal Development”) and becoming increasingly corrupt, climaxing with the disaster of the “Babylonian Captivity” and the ultra-corrupt Renaissance Popes.

HOWEVER, during this time the RCC WAS Christian. I don’t buy the uber-Baptist/Evangelical claim that it became outright heretical. It was still a Christian church, but with a lot of added doctrine and rituals saddled by an extremely corrupt and centralized hierarchy more interested in politics and wealth than teaching the faith. The Protestant Reformation was an inevitable reaction to this. And remember, without it, no Council of Trent and no Counter-Reformation that did its best to clean up some of the more egregious abuses.
 
JHow said:
I think it is simply a way to talk about the early church without thinking about how catholic the early church was.
Click to expand...
I agree most refer back to an “Old Church” because a lot of them believe the Church was founded by Constantine, which is false because, Emperor Constantine just set up the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea. But in fact there had been many councils before Nicaea and the structure of the Church already existed. Constantine was at the council just as an observer and the Bishops and representative of the Pope made all of the decisions. Before the council of Nicaea, priestly celibacy was already the norm, baptism of infants was practiced (as were all 7 sacraments), and the structure of priests and Bishops was already 300 years old.
 
Huh. I’ve never heard that phrase. Usually it’s “the earliest believers” or “the first Christians.”
 
ProdigalAnglicn said:
You can’t just set up a dividing line and have the New Testament Church over here and the RCC over there. It was a gradual process over many centuries of the church hierarchy adding new teaching (you all would call it “Doctrinal Development”) and becoming increasingly corrupt, climaxing with the disaster of the “Babylonian Captivity” and the ultra-corrupt Renaissance Popes.

HOWEVER, during this time the RCC WAS Christian. I don’t buy the uber-Baptist/Evangelical claim that it became outright heretical. It was still a Christian church, but with **a lot of added doctrine **and rituals saddled by an extremely corrupt and centralized hierarchy more interested in politics and wealth than teaching the faith. The Protestant Reformation was an inevitable reaction to this. And remember, without it, no Council of Trent and no Counter-Reformation that did its best to clean up some of the more egregious abuses.
Click to expand...
May you please provide the list of “added doctrines” by the RCC. Thank you.
 
prodigal anglican can’t provide anything because like many others he doesn’t understand the Catholic Church so he seeks to create scandal against it. If the RCC is as flawed and corrupt as you say it is, why are entire congregations of anglicans coming into the faith? Some people’s pride gets in their way and even if Christ Himself were to appear physically before them and smack them upside the head, they’d still disbelieve and stick to their own idea of faith/religion. Maybe you’d be more comfortable in a new age church where anything you believe, no matter how heretical or downright silly, will be appreciated and possibly worshipped in turn?
 
ProdigalAnglicn said:
You can’t just set up a dividing line and have the New Testament Church over here and the RCC over there. It was a gradual process over many centuries of the church hierarchy adding new teaching (you all would call it “Doctrinal Development”) and becoming increasingly** corrupt**, climaxing with the disaster of the “Babylonian Captivity” and the ultra-**corrupt **Renaissance Popes.

HOWEVER, during this time the RCC WAS Christian. I don’t buy the uber-Baptist/Evangelical claim that it became outright heretical. It was still a Christian church, but with a lot of added doctrine and rituals saddled by an extremely corrupt and centralized hierarchy more interested in politics and wealth than teaching the faith. The Protestant Reformation was an inevitable reaction to this. And remember, without it, no Council of Trent and no Counter-Reformation that did its best to clean up some of the more egregious abuses.
Click to expand...
So it would be safe to say that you believe that the RCC is corrupt. If it is corrupt, remove the corruption and tell me what it would be like absent…

Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Extrinsic Justification
Denial of Church Authority

Protestant inventions.👍
 
dtwgivens said:
Often, I will see Protestants (and non-Catholic Christians in general) refer to “the old church” when debating the early Christians, as if to suggest that there was another church that existed before the Catholic Church. I know that some Baptists believe that there has been an unbroken chain of churches since the days of Christ which have held similar beliefs of the current Baptist churches, and that some Protestants believe that the early Church was actually Orthodox and that the Catholic Church wasn’t created until the 4th century.
Any thoughts on this topic and on what church this “old Church” may be?
Click to expand...
You will also read and see discussed “Ancient Church”.
 
I’ve heard of the “Early Church”, not the “Old Church”.

It was at the Church in Antioch where the disciples were first called Christians, according to Acts 11:26.

[bibledrb]Acts 11:26[/bibledrb]

In Him,

Jose
 
Where has the RCC changed/added to its doctrine? I could list a lot of things but let’s do any easy one.

According to the Council of Trent, Protestants are “anathema”, which means we’re accursed or damned. It’s a word St. Paul used to describe non-believers. But according to Vatican II, we’re merely “separated brethren”. So how do these things not contradict each other?

BTW, when I was speaking of “corruption” I was speaking about the Late Medieval and especially Renaissance era RCC, not the modern Church. The latter is infinitely less corrupt. I’d be the last person on earth to suggest John Paul II or Benedict XVI is in anyway comparable to the Medicis!

But do any Catholics on here really think the 13th-16th Century church was just fine and dandy and spotless until Martin Luther came along? Martin Luther was an antibody produced by a diseased body, not the disease itself.
 
ProdigalAnglicn said:
Where has the RCC changed/added to its doctrine? I could list a lot of things but let’s do any easy one.

According to the Council of Trent, Protestants are “anathema”, which means we’re accursed or damned. It’s a word St. Paul used to describe non-believers. But according to Vatican II, we’re merely “separated brethren”. So how do these things not contradict each other?

BTW, when I was speaking of “corruption” I was speaking about the Late Medieval and especially Renaissance era RCC, not the modern Church. The latter is infinitely less corrupt. I’d be the last person on earth to suggest John Paul II or Benedict XVI is in anyway comparable to the Medicis!

But do any Catholics on here really think the 13th-16th Century church was just fine and dandy and spotless until Martin Luther came along? Martin Luther was an antibody produced by a diseased body, not the disease itself.
Click to expand...
 
the counci of trent used anathema 'cos of Gal 1:7,8 (this does not concern unbelievers but troublesome believers) vatican 11 talks about separated brethren 'cos of Jn 17:22,23(not contradictory just different biblical perspertive to same reality) but to those born protestant who are sincerly ignorant that some doctrines pervert scripture, who truly love christ and want to follow him, ‘believe in christ and are properly baptised’ are christains and merit to be called separated brethren.
Despite the fact that there are corrupt persons in the church 'the church foundf by christ is holy-De fide, apostles creed 'cos of sinless christ the head who makes all in holy. Pls note an antibody does not work outside and against the body but inside and for the body, you can’t call Martin Luther an antibody when he call the church ‘antichrist’.
Peace
40.png
Ubenedictus:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top