**I was referring to the WAY they HAD to worship - in houses, in secret, etc. We definitely need to heed the words of the Fathers. **
Well, most Protestants don’t think about it critically, any more than most Catholics do. Obviously those Protestants who do think intelligently about history don’t believe what you just said. Nor do educated Protestants go in for the “Trail of Blood,” though many have plenty of sympathies for certain medieval dissenting groups (the Albigenses are somewhat of a straw man, since the contemporaneous Waldenses were much more orthodox). Most Protestants would hold that any Christian church tends to become more corrupt over time because of human sin and error. The medieval Church was not apostate, but it had plenty of things that needed reform (and most Protestants would point to various reform movements within the Middle Ages, both those condemned by the Catholic Church–Waldenses, Spiritual Franciscans, Beguines, Lollards, Hussites–and those accepted by the Church–Cistercians, Dominicans, Franciscans, Observants, Brethren of the Common Life). Protestants tend to see Luther, Zwingli (and possibly the Anabaptists), etc., as just another (though more drastic) wave in this Spirit-guided process of continual reform of the Church. More ecumenical Protestants would tend to say that the Catholic Reformation of the 16th century, however much they might disagree with it, was also a move of God for reform; more hardline ones would say that by rejecting the Protestant Reformation the “Roman Catholic Church” became apostate or at least more deeply mired in corruption and error than previously.
Yup.
That’s what Carroll tried to claim, and it’s what some Landmark Baptists still believe.
So the early Christians did have the Scriptures.Up until about 50 AD, there were only the Old Testament Scriptures.
Christian Scriptures started being written about 50 AD, with probably either Galatians or 1 Thessalonians being first. The others were written during a fifty-year span, ending with Revelation, being written some time between 95 AD and 100 AD.
After that followed a 300-year span when various books were disputed; some of the books we now have in the Bible were rejected by some local churches, while others that are now not found in the Bible (the Didache, for example) were considered canonical Scripture by other churches. Most of the contention settled down by 393 AD, when the Council of Hippo issued a list of Scriptures which became more or less definitive. This list was the same list issued by Pope Damasus in 382.
The Canon was officially closed by Pope Innocent I in 405 AD.
So, yes, there were Scriptures in the Early Church, but not like we think of them. The entire, finished, 73-book Bible, with leather cover, gilt page edging, attached concordance, and thumb-indexing, didn’t come down from heaven on a golden platter in 33 AD…when we’re speaking of Christian Scriptures, the thing had to be written first, and nobody even started on it until seventeen years after Jesus returned to the Father.
Well, apparently, the first two generations or so of Christians were doomed to hell, because they had no “bible” to read, and King James wasn’t born yet. Or, just maybe, salvation depends on something other than the bible, huh?
Indeed, they had a surfeit of Scriptures, since there were multiple Jewish canons in play. The Old Testament canon the Reformers chose actually wasn’t established by Jews until after the apostolic age, in fact, after the Bible canon was established by the Catholic Church if I recall correctly.
You are correct Atemi, the Old Testament in its parts did exist already, but both the Jews and Christians had to eventually decide which books made their Canon. New Testament writings as you well know did not exist until Paul started writing his letters.
Not only that, but most protestants seem to think that Luther and co. set their churches on a much firmer footing than Christ Himself did; the Church Christ founded went to pot after a single generation or at most after 300 years; whilst the protestants’ churches are still going strong (in their opinion) after nearly 500 years. They imply that the protestant founders were greater than Christ.
Ask the children of Israel and the Jewish people.
And I don’t know of a case where a Pope or bishop asked to be a Protestant and was rejected
)My first point (and I’m a Cath, not a SS BTW), was asking what Caths mean when we say that there was no more public revelation after the death of the last Apostle? Surely this would be a good reason TO be obsessed with the first Christians, specifically the Apostles. I used the example of contraception and you mentioned Onan, OK. What about intercessory prayer other than to Jesus (the “one intermediary”), indulgences, Mary as Co-Redeemer, Mediatrix of all Graces, prayer aids (statues), degrees of relics, Holy Water, the Sign of the Cross, the Memorare, I could go on all night with a series of ordinances that the Church has added over the years. But for just these, give the appropriate verses that lead us to have these things implicitly or explicitly from Scripture. I am not necessarily saying I don’t believe in such, but they do seem extra-Scriptural.That’s nothing to do with it really. Unapproved visions such as Medjugorje and approved visions such as Fatima are both private revelations and no Catholic is ever obliged to believe any of them. And if a private revelation contains anything which is contrary to public revelation it obviously must be false, by definition. It develops always from existing revelation, using human reason. Who told you it’s not in scripture. Way back in Genesis God imposed the death penalty on Onan for his non-abortive contraception.
Which verses speak of Christ founding many churches?
What’s a SS?
Yes, and with the Apostolic Tradition they gave us. And Catholics have very high regard for it, I’m sure some protestants even think we’re “obsessed” with it.
You’re confused on a couple of points here. Firstly, the Bible is an expression of the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is not derived from Scripture.
It’s rude to call them foolish. I’d just call them “rash”. Because not only has the church approved of them and the prophecies Our Lady gave their have been remarkably and frighteningly fulfilled, and JP2 had a particular devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, but yes as you say the miracle of the dancing sun (not the vision of Our Lady itself nor her revelations, which were confided only to the three children, of whom two died within a few years) was witnessed by IIRC 70,000 people including some atheist journalists who had gone there specifically to debunk the story and came away believing it. But even if thousands of people hear a revelation, this would not make it a “public revelation”, which in the sense Catholics understand it means a revelation intended for the whole human race and which Christ gave to the Apostles.
Actually, that’s a bad and specious comparison to bible interpretation. The Supreme Court does not rely only on the founding fathers to interpret law. If so, half of the laws we have today wouldn’t be in place. The Constitution is a fluid document that allows for change of laws with the change of the times and the changes in society. It’s a very protestant kind of document, actually. What the court actually does is rely on personal interpretation of what the Constitution says. Which is why the court rulings change with the make up of the judges, and why appointing judges is such an important power granted to the President. The President can change the way law is interpreted for many years to come depending on which judges he appoints, and how they interpret the constitution. The original intent of the founding fathers really has very little bearing on modern day interpretation.
Nothing wrong with that—if a kid keeps staring at the pool, they’ll eventually want to jump in.
Maybe Catholics in East Tennessee do a lot more “muttering” than they do on the West Coast. I don’t know any Catholics who have an opinion on “Amazing Grace”, theological or otherwise…
Given the absolute treacle which passes for “music ministry” in most Protestant churches today (can you say “praise band”—no, please don’t), you may need to walk that back, Edwin. Anyone who joins a Protestant denomination for the music (I’ll allow a Pentecostal exception where gospel choirs are the choice) is as ignorant of music as theology.For myself, the formal doctrine is not the issue so much as the piety of evangelical Protestantism. When I hear Catholics mutter that “Amazing Grace” isn’t really orthodox, I feel far more dubious about Catholicism than when I read the anathemas of Trent. But that’s another issue. (And BTW, as a Wesleyan I don’t accept “Amazing Grace” in exactly the sense Newton intended it either
Ediwn
Yes, let’s not compare the constitution and the Church. The consitution is a protestant enlightenment age document founded on mainly specious and faddish concepts relative to the age, it is very secular to the 18th century and the en vogue philosophies at that time.